I find these debates to be profoundly non-useful in and of themselves, but they do reveal much about the way we discipline our thinking.

Firstly, to force the issue, these "thought experiments" tend to have to warp reality to the point where they are absurd - the idea that there are only two choices, frex...there is always scope for choice with free will.

I'm the kind of guy that does lean towards helping people if I can, but not at the expense of my life or those of others I care about. I carry a gun for self defense, and would use it to defend an unknown woman from violent assault, but I wouldn't use it to intervene in some gangbangers conflict.

What I see of interest here is the way many people are conditioned to follow the life-evaluating calculus of "more = better". Why is it better to save 5 rather than 1? Why isn't it just as immoral to condemn 1 to death as it is 5? How do you 'value' human life, after all?

If I know none of the victims, they are literally of no 'value' to me at all. The world will continue turning after their death, my life will go on undisturbed. In fact, there is an argument to suggest that there is greater 'value' in letting 5 die to reduce competition for resources.

Concepts such as "value" and "worth" are very treacherous things at times.